During the Super Bowl tomorrow the NFL will be running the following PSA on domestic violence:

Last year’s PSA featured a woman dialing 911 but not being able to tell the 911 operator why she called. She couldn’t speak freely because her abuser was in the room with her to prevent her from communicating in ways he didn’t approve of. This year’s PSA is more ambiguous, but it suggests that the woman being abused during the Super Bowl is the victim of a boyfriend or husband who is “in a mood” and therefore she declines an invitation to a Super Bowl party. At the very least it is implied that the woman in the PSA doesn’t want to provoke an argument with her controlling boyfriend/husband. It might also be that as with the previous year’s PSA, the boyfriend/husband is monitoring her communication and perhaps even physically blocking the abused woman from communicating with her friend (or family) in ways he doesn’t approve of. Her abuser might be physically stopping her from communicating by taking her phone away or pressing cancel before she can hit send.

If we didn’t know that only men are domestic abusers, we might be tempted to point out that the scenario in this year’s PSA is far more likely with the sexes switched. It is far more likely that a man would decline an invitation to a Super Bowl party because his wife or girlfriend was “in a mood”. It is also more likely that a wife/girlfriend would physically stop her husband/boyfriend from communicating with friends or family.

The domestic violence industry tells us repeatedly that domestic violence really isn’t about violence, but about power. This is only partially true. To domestic violence activists, it isn’t about the methods one partner uses to achieve power of the other, but about which partner is in power. This is why being “in a mood” is lumped in with physical violence, and why looking at pornography is considered “sexual abuse”. This is also why there are careful safeguards to prevent women from inadvertently being caught up in the domestic violence machinery. Police are trained to see the man as the abuser, since abuse comes from “male privilege”. They are further trained to see denials of abuse by accused men as proof that they are abusers. Dr. Don Dutton, head of the University of British Columbia Forensic Psychology lab explains how domestic violence activists have trained police and other officers of the court to identify the man as the abuser:

Jaffe et al. then go on to define abuse, using the “Duluth Power and Control Wheel” that includes “Using Male Privilege” as a part of an octant of abusive strategies used against women. Jaffe et al. then list, under “whom to assess”: Victimized mothers (p.44), Battering fathers (p.46) and “war torn children” (p. 49). Jaffe et al suggest using an Abuse Observation Checklist (Dutton 1992) and asking the victimized woman to describe the “first, worst and last” incident, followed by allowing the “alleged perpetrator an opportunity to respond”. It is not clear what response, apart from denial might be expected from an accused male. Indeed, the authors warn an assessor that (p. 42) the male perpetrator may “minimize their abusive behavior by blaming their victims or proclaiming that the abuse was uncharacteristic”. It seems that, once accused, the male can only use responses that the evaluator is already primed to see as disingenuous.

The most commonly used model of defining abuse, the Duluth Model, is very specific that it is men who are the abusers. They make it a point not to create a gender neutral standard for defining abuse, because their primary focus is on who benefits from the way abuse is defined (emphasis mine):

Making the Power and Control Wheel gender neutral would hide the power imbalances in relationships between men and women that reflect power imbalances in society. By naming the power differences, we can more clearly provide advocacy and support for victims, accountability and opportunities for change for offenders, and system and societal changes that end violence against women.

Their fundamental goal is to effect feminist change, not to stop violence or controlling behavior in general:

…change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.

As a final safety against having charges of domestic abuse used against women instead of men, domestic violence advocates have created a special category of abuse to apply to men who try to point out that what their wife/girlfriend did to them is abuse. A man using the language of the domestic violence industry is guilty of knowledge abuse.

For an example of how the Kafkaesque rules of domestic violence are applied in real life, we can look at the Idaho Statesman report of Saeed Abedini’s 2007 conviction of domestic violence. Part of the story of course is a he said, she said. But part of the story appears to be agreed to by both Naghmeh and Saeed. According to the Statesman:

The argument came while Saeed, then 27, was speaking with family members. Naghmeh, then 30, got upset at something he told his family and tried to close the laptop computer he was using to talk with them, Saeed told police.

If we take this at face value, Naghmeh did what the Super Bowl PSAs and the whole industry warns us abusers do. She prevented Saeed from communicating with others. She even physically took over his communication device to force him to stop. If the sexes had been reversed, this would have been domestic violence according to the DV advocates.

According to the Statesman report, after she closed his laptop Saeed tried to get Naghmeh out of the room so he could communicate without her monitoring him. The area of dispute is what Saeed did in order to stop her from preventing him from communicating with family. He says he verbally told her to leave the room. She says he pushed her out of the room.

Naghmeh — who was holding her daughter, Rebekka, then 10 months old — told police that her husband “pushed her several times” and forced her out of the room. Naghmeh said Saeed pushed her in the neck and upper chest, and the officer, Erik Tiner, now a sergeant, reported seeing a “slight amount of redness” in that area, according to his report.

“He told me that he told her to get out of the room and made hand gestures indicating that he pushed her,” Tiner wrote. “I asked him if he pushed her and he denied doing so.”

Even if we assume Naghmeh’s account is the accurate one, switch the sexes and Naghmeh would be the abuser. If a husband was physically preventing his wife from talking with her family by closing her laptop and hovering around to make sure she didn’t re establish communication, and the wife responded by pushing her controlling husband out of the room, the husband would still be the abuser. This is, again, by design.

The domestic violence industry has created a paradigm where women can physically block, shove, and even hit their partners and still not be considered the abusers. Web MD warns men to make sure they don’t end up in a room with only one exit when their wife gets in a mood, because it is very common for wives to physically block their husbands in a room and then cry domestic assault if the husband tries to escape. From the WebMD article Help for Battered Men:

“Never allow yourself to be provoked into any kind of retaliation,” says Brown. “We tell men if they have to be in an argument, do it in a room with two doors so they can leave; a lot of times a woman will block the door, the man will try to move her, and that will be enough for him to get arrested.”

Understand that if a husband were to physically trap his wife in a room, this would make him the abuser, even if she tried to escape. Turn the sexes around, and the man is still the abuser.

This same pattern persists even when a wife violently assaults her husband and he doesn’t fight back; the husband is still the abuser. Iraq war vet Joseph Kerr explained how this works in his post “What Do You Do When A Girl Hits You?”

Women assaulting their partners, and specifically women initiating violence against their partners, is accepted as normal and not domestic violence by domestic violence activists. Not surprisingly, stopping women from attacking their partners would be extremely effective* in preventing the women themselves from becoming injured:

How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. According to Dr. Capaldi, “The question of initiation of violence is a crucial one… much IPV is mutual, and initiations — even that seem minor — may lead to escalation.”

The problem is, stopping women from being assaulted isn’t the primary objective of the DV industry, and taking away the power for women to assault their partners would take a tool away from women to control their relationships. The issue is, after all, not about violence, but about power and control.

133 Responses to NFL Super Bowl PSA: Who is the abuser?

It seems that, once accused, the male can only use responses that the evaluator is already primed to see as disingenuous.

This type of confirmation bias is built into the entire system. From the guidance toward initial contact by the police to every interaction the accused with agents of either state or contracting agencies like the one I worked for.

It is in the “curriculum” for the batterers intervention programs. It makes up the entire underlying presuppositional posture of the system.

For all of the single men reading this article, think about what can happen to you. Seriously. If she’s unhappppy, she can throw you under the bus. Men no longer have civil right in a marital situation. Now, I realize that this is hard to believe. Read this article very carefully. REALIZE this……the women being described here are everywhere. And here’s the kicker…..young girls are trained this way to control men.

Dude, I’m single MGTOW and loving it! You’ll never see me put myself in a marital situation or relationship of any kind period. They have all the power and rights and never going to be some cunt’s helpless torture slave. When cunts aren’t put in their place VERY strictly and boy’s are taught to be pathetic little white knights/manginas you get this:

*Men having no right to self defense
*Men have no right to property
*Men have no rights to their own kids
*Men are hauled up before a feminist/white knight Roland Freisler
*You can be legally sexually assaulted
*Have your reputation destroyed, jailed or even murdered from false accusations
*Lose your income and even career

I could go on and on. The list is almost endless but you get the idea. Why in freaking hell does any man get involved with women these days? Are you idiots NUTS?

Even if all you have to face is just a plain divorce you could STILL lose everything or almost everything.

I’d also like to emphasis what Easttexasfatboy wrote:

—“Read this article very carefully.”—

Yup. Read it again if you need to. As a man you have zero rights. Understand? Even if you’re the one slaving away 50-70 hours a week at a job. All she has to do is press 3 little numbers on a phone and that’s it. Everything you worked for….from your property, education, kids, reputation…everything will be gone. PERIOD. And no one will care. And sorry to say that all the God and praying in the world will not help you. Stay away from women.

My advice? Simple. Go MGTOW. You’re about as free as this authoritarian cuntocracy lets you be. But hey, you want to roll the dice? Go ahead and be stupid. Up to you. Enjoy having a great possibility of being a bitch’s and the government’s helpless torture slave.

Know what could await you if you choose to gamble with a parachute that has a great chance of not opening when you need it most. It’s a trap that has been set up for you. You sure you want to play the game women and her real husband/daddy set up for you? This is what you might be facing:

Think it won’t happen to you? Live or die. Make your choice.

Let’s say you want to make the smart decision. Then learn something from Joshua:

I am so sick and tired of the domestic abuse industry. If a man decides to institute any authority over his wife, the one he is responsible for, he’s an abuser.

It’s amazing how they never stop telling men how terrible we are, how evil and controlling we are, how despicable and disgusting we are… and then they have the nerve to ask why men don’t ‘man up’ and get married and have children and get a ‘real job’. Are these people that disconnected from what it right in front of them?

They don’t need to worry about me Jim. I’m done playing such a stupid game. Scott talked about us having ‘unrealistic demands’, I think he needs to have a cold, hard look at the facts on the ground and not from his own marriage. This is madness. It is not men who drew the line, it was society and women, and the only move that a man can play that doesn’t bring untold hell upon him, is not to play their stupid game.

If a man decides to institute any authority over his wife, the one he is responsible for, he’s an abuser.

Hell FH, even if all you’re trying to do is live your life as a perfect equal with your wife you’ll still get the shaft. You don’t have to assert authority of any kind to get destroyed for simply having a penis. Like I’ve said in the past, we are currently living under Jane Crow. Stay away from cunts. Go MGTOW guys. The only winning move is not to play the game.

It’s amazing to me that one group of people can have so little rights and everyone else (hell even people of my own gender for fucks sake!) are so indifferent about it. They’ll even mock your suffering while they’re at it.

Like I’ve said in the past, we are currently living under Jane Crow. Stay away from cunts. Go MGTOW guys. The only winning move is not to play the game.

Society will not endure this way. Moreover, not everyone is cut out for MGTOW — or for banging random chicks he meets socially. These are lifestyles that a few of us can enjoy thanks to a strange historical cusp which will rapidly evaporate.

We should concentrate on supporting the men who will keep society going, even if we individually opt out. It’s the only ethical response.

Stephen Baskerville does a great expose of this in his book “Taken into Custody”, which should really be required reading for all men.

Yeah I remember reading that years ago. He was one of the first to open my eyes about what is really going on. I could hear Morpheus in my ears saying, “Welcome to the real world”. And, “I didn’t say it would be easy Jim, I just said it would be the truth”.

It’s great to see the facts and the truth continue to come out. To those of us that have been in similar situations it is no surprise that Naghmeh initiated the confrontation, escalated the confrontation and then pressed the red button. Hopefully he will get out of this with his skin, that’s about as good as can be hoped for.

The cost of Superbowl ads is pretty high. Money ought to be spent on victims of actual abuse (both male and female), but I suppose that isn’t really what they are concerned about. It’s more important to brainwash the general public.

Nobody’s going to guilt-trip me into working hard for something I apparently can’t hope to have.

Good man and amen to that. Why jump out of a plane at 10,000 feet when you know there is a good chance that parachute won’t open? Boxer said earlier that most men can’t live that way. So living in hell is more to their taste eh? Ok, have at it fools and then moan and groan when your life is completely annihilated and your spirit is broken. That’s much harder to deal with than simply living alone or *gasp* not ejaculating into wet hole. Geez guys come on. Is it really worth it?

So, again, what will it take for the western man to fight back?
His wife has already been taken away and turned into his enemy. He is now a second class citizen in his own land. He has lost authority over his family, his wife, his kids. His life earnings are being taken away from him based solely on unfounded accusations of a woman. He has lost all respect in society. Yet, he keeps taking it in the chin, and playing nice.

So, when will the western man begin to take a stand, and fight for his dignity? After all, this nonsense called feminism is only prevalent in the western world and nowhere else. You could go to Asia, Africa and much of the rest of the world and, despite the “women’s rights” mantra everywhere, the women in those places still know their roles in society and in the homes. They still serve their men and are mothers to their kids. This

We can say all we want about the western woman, but the blame must still lie squarely at the feet of the western men. Men caused this. If weeds are overgrown in your yard, you don’t blame the weeds; you blame the home owner. Western men, because of their actions or inactions, have caused their women to become feral. They must own this.

For all of the single men reading this article, think about what can happen to you. Seriously. If she’s unhappppy, she can throw you under the bus. Men no longer have civil right in a marital situation.

If you think that by being single you’ll be free from the tyranny of feminism,, my, do I have a talking unicorn I’d like to sell you. The only way out that I see is for the western man to take back his culture, or create a parallel culture to counter the cancer of feminism in his land.

The article is the reason why I’m in the manosphere. This article is the reason the church is following the FI and why some men want the collapse and civil war and why no one is doing anything about the crisis in Europe over the actual sexual assaults from the immigrants.
This very power given too women and the reasonable male response is why women have no respect or tingle for their husbands and why so many don’t marry. Look at all of the silly shit the church is coming up with as seen in the last few articles from Dalrock. All of it from red pill PUA,grass eaters , MGTOW, cuckservative ,game, homosexuality, trannies what ever your tool is just a work around for the laws of misandry. There will be serious blood letting when the SHTF.

We can say all we want about the western woman, but the blame must still lie squarely at the feet of the western men. Men caused this. If weeds are overgrown in your yard, you don’t blame the weeds; you blame the home owner. Western men, because of their actions or inactions, have caused their women to become feral. They must own this.

It’s terminal. The West is addicted to its current philosophy. It won’t end until the West ends, and that won’t be soon. Don’t hold your breath for a society-changing uprising by men — you’ll pass out long, long before that ever happens.

Like a lot of bad behavior from women, physical abuse towards men is just another shit test, albeit a more extreme type. Our current gynocentric society has made it impossible to pass these tests since it’s illegal to defend yourself, or physically restrain a woman. If a woman so much as bruises her hand while punching you in the face, it’s a wrap.

I’m not one for hitting women, but have you ever noticed how much better behaved the women are who are with men who don’t give a shit about the consequences of physical altercation.
In my experience, women rarely call the police on real abusers. A man so bold as to hit a woman, knowing the dire consequences if he were to get caught is too sexy to give up. He might be an asshole, but at least he’s a “real” man. Only AFC’s that the woman wants to get away from get the pinch.

Male guilt is assumed, and you are screwed unless you recorded the incident.

Male guilt is assumed, and you are screwed unless you recorded the incident.

Doesn’t help you. You will still get arrested under their criteria of who is bigger and who can inflict more harm. The standard itself is another way of saying, in pseudo-neutral terms, “arrest the guy no matter what”. What happened is irrelevant. The “must arrest” guidelines always arrest the guy unless the cops show up as the woman is wielding a bloody axe to your neck.

In the days when I had a television set I always zapped the commercials, but do those who don’t zap take any more notice of the ads than they do of muzak? My friend was telling me last night about a commercial voiced by Helen Mirren and that the cost of the spot was Four Million Dollars. I said that actresses (and actors) would say anything for a fee. Helen Mirren was complaining about drunk-drivers who she described as Pillocks. My friend said that he doubted that Americans would understand the term Pillock even though they would perhaps get the gist. “What’s this all about?” he enquired. I said it was for the Superbowl. He responded: “What’s that?”

You can’t blame most western men for the current situation. The men who enabled the current system are generally rich and powerful enough to be (usually) immune from the FI’s worst abuses.

* An extremely wealthy man can afford a couple of divorces and child support obligations, and still live comfortably.

* Women are also less likely to rebel against an extremely wealthy and powerful man. Even if he’s not Alpha, but a rich Beta, she still wants the Status connected with being his wife. Plus, there’s a certain Status that comes with being Happily Married With Children to a High Status Man. Many wives of high status men won’t disturb that narrative. They’d lose status before their female friends if they were seen as unhappily married, or if they divorced.

So, it’s a case of rich and powerful men throwing weaker men under the bus, because rich and powerful men can better control their wives, and better survive if they can’t.

I have been married 13 yrs and my wife has slapped me 3 or 4 separate times during verbal arguments (there was no violence from me explicit or implied).
In the past I have done nothing, just brushing it off as her emotions getting the best of her. If it happens again I want to have a plan of action; something that will let her know it won’t be tolerated anymore. But I am at a loss of what to do that won’t make things worse, or land me in jail.
Any advice on how to handle this if it happens again??

@Novaseeker
“Doesn’t help you. You will still get arrested under their criteria of who is bigger and who can inflict more harm.”

Oh’ I agree 100%. Even if you have the woman on camera starting it, hitting you with a shovel while saying fuck the police, while you cower in a corner; if you hit her or restrain her even once you are screwed.

The only way out is record her while she hurts you, while you passively wait until she stops. You can’t touch her at all. I would recommend any man who gets a whiff of a situation like starting, to begin some sort of recording immediately.

This kid below is an excellent example of how to successfully defend yourself against a crazy bitch.

I saw your comment on Galatians 3:28 but cannot find it so. So here is an answer in opposition to the fact that this verse points to equality of all men before God:

”The verse mentions nothing about equality. So *clearly* it’s not about that.

St. Paul is saying that being “in Christ” is a new form of identity. An eternal one. On this earth, it does not change nor abrogate the biological, historical, and social facts of our existence (e.g., sex, nationality, financial independence). But in Christ–the Logos of God that “made all things”–the baptized are grafted into a new “nationality” that of Christ, to participate in his work.”

Secretly record every incident. Copy the footage give multiple copies out to personal lawyers, family members, trusted friends. You don’t have to tell them what it is, you can even encrypt the data with a password, just tell them it’s an important document you want them to hold a copy of. Hide a copy somewhere for yourself. Play your wife a copy of the footage. Explain to her that if she ever does it again, you will defend yourself with said footage.
This is the only safe way.

So, it’s a case of rich and powerful men throwing weaker men under the bus, because rich and powerful men can better control their wives, and better survive if they can’t.

Yes, but even simpler.

The first state to pass no-fault divorce was California, and it was supported by Rep. Gov. Ronald Reagan. His idea was to make it easier for men like him to divorce their wives quietly, take the economic hit (which he could easily absorb) and let everyone move on. He said later he never expected it would result in millions upon millions of women in the middle and lower echelons divorcing their husbands and taking checks. They just didn’t see it. Most people, and especially the wealthy and powerful, tend to be quite myopic in their vision.

@Opus
Commercials are avoided if at all possible in our house. But I think that people do pay attention to them; otherwise, no one would spend that kind of money on them. Television commercials, along with all the other kinds of media to which we are exposed, have a cumulative effect, I suppose. There is no way to avoid the messages that the culture sends our way. Maybe some people actively reject these messages, but I think most soak it up in such a way that it affects how they view the world and how they live their lives. Unless we actively talk to our children about what they see and hear, they will internalize these messages. The content of anti-traditional family messages are becoming more objectionable all the time.

You could go to Asia, Africa and much of the rest of the world and, despite the “women’s rights” mantra everywhere, the women in those places still know their roles in society and in the homes.

Africa is a basket case of marginal importance which contributes nothing to human civilization. It produces nothing besides famine, epidemics, tribal conflicts and all conceivable forms of barbarism. The same applies to most Latin American and Middle Eastern lands. They won’t provide an example for anyone to follow. China, Japan and India – the largest Asian lands – are thoroughly feminized, Westernized, and their traditional culture is already dead. And as far as moderately advanced Muslim “patriarchies” are concerned, they provide us with gems such as this:

Boxer said earlier that most men can’t live that way. So living in hell is more to their taste eh? Ok, have at it fools and then moan and groan when your life is completely annihilated and your spirit is broken.

Welcome to Philosophy 106. Open your books to the beginning of the second chapter. The fallacy which we will study today is called false dilemma.

Personally, I find it immoral to support a system or society this twisted, and will not support people in becoming husbands or fathers.

I will, and do, however, support those who have been ravaged by the system, and need help recovering. Man out on the street after serving time in jail for being unable to meet his imputed income, after his professional license was seized? Yes, I will happily give this man a meal, and comfort.

Also, if a man has already become married, against my warnings, I will be willing to have him over for guy’s night, provide a single guy’s perspective to his children when asked questions, and generally show him the respect he needs to have a chance of holding his family together.

Funny to see the NFL pushing this idea now. Not too long ago feminists were using the Super Bowl as a weapon against men by trying to promote the claim that domestic violence skyrocketed by 40% on the day of the big game. (View here)It was a completely bogus claim with zero basis in fact, but that didn’t stop the harpies and their white knight allies from trying to run with it.

The church isn’t above getting in on the scam either; A couple of years ago the domestic abuse profiteer (and former Mars Hill pastor) Justin Holcomb tried to jump on the gravy train by claiming that the Super Bowl was now one of the largest destinations for illegal sex-trafficking and that a sporting event enjoyed by men would lead to thousands being exploited. Like the first claim it had nothing to do with reality; one of Holcomb’s colleagues even called him out on his lie. Still, he gave no apology — and now this.

The football business already has enough people on the outside trying to smear them, and by extension the men who enjoy their product. So why join in themselves? An ad like this seems comparable to dealing with a bully by punching yourself in the face and then saying, “See? There’s no reason for you to beat me up when I’m willing and able to do it myself!”

Not too long ago feminists were using the Super Bowl as a weapon against men by trying to promote the claim that domestic violence skyrocketed by 40% on the day of the big game. (View here)It was a completely bogus claim with zero basis in fact, but that didn’t stop the harpies and their white knight allies from trying to run with it.

What else would you expect from cunts like that? They have nothing to bitch about so they make it up. They do it all the time.

This one has to be one of their more eye-rolling claims. Watching the Super Bowl causes DV against women to go up? I wonder how many idiots fell for that BS.

A good post, Dalrock. The issue of the Dututh Model has been around long enough for Angry Harry to denouce it in his website, from 2004. He notes that according to British authorities, “buying unwanted gifts” and “going to the children’s school” are acts of domestic violence, as are “raising your voice” and “controlling the finances, even when your [female partner’s] credit card debt is out of control”.
I’m sick of White Ribbon Day – which I always ignore – and “women’s only self defence” – always advertised with some evil hooded man jumping a woman from behind in an alley. I’m supposed to pledge and swear – I don’t know to whom since feminists as atheists don’t believe in God – to never harm a woman. The trouble with swearing that is that it acts like those locks you have on workdesk drawers: it only keeps out honest people. Whenever I drive past upmarket night spots, I always see some young honey on the arm of a guy who looks like he should be on a “Wanted” police poster. You can be sure HE never swore to never harm a woman. Of course not: it’s part of his appeal.

That’s not only untrue, but irrelevant. If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be here, after all.

Guess I’m going to have to make this a little clearer. I care about some of the men who might be willing to steer clear of the hurricane (as much as it can be done) not “society” as it exists now or whether or not this silly present society is going to continue. Big difference. So yes, it is relevant to what I was saying.

Darwinian Arminian, the NFL is just another part of the Female Imperative. Pink month, female reporters in locker rooms, female sports desk commenters who know very little – it’s all part of the NFL trying to appease feminism.

Appeasing females is just another way of failing fitness tests. I quit viewing football some years back, when Pink month first showed up. It wasn’t worth my time anymore. Some of the most rabid NFL fans I know are women who like to pretend they’re “just one of the guys”, which used to mystify me but now makes perfect sense.

SpikeThe issue of the Dututh Model has been around long enough for Angry Harry to denouce it in his website, from 2004.

If memory serves the Duluth model dates back to around 1980 or so, and it was based on essentially zero science. The sole study I found a few years ago was done in Minnesota, hence the name, had a tiny number of subjects (N) and was a really pathetic example of “social science” research. Yet it spread across the US like wildfire. Interesting, no? The number of people involved in jamming the Duluth model into law in every US state may have been well under 1,000, possibly even under 100. I’ve long wondered how the effort was funded, probably via the same foundations such as Ford that underwrote much of the rest of feminism in the 1970’s.

Duluth is now so deeply embedded that no one can question it (just ask Scott) any attempt to study it dispassionately would never get funded. It’s another example of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

And since it “only” affects ABUSERS, trying to warn men about it is generally impossible. Some of the staunchest defenders of the Duluth model that I know of are men who are fiscally and politically and culturally conservative, who cling to traditions from the past – they are, therefore, traditional conservatives. Such men are not likely to be Duluthed because they tend to marry women with a bit more impulse control – but, as with divorce, a woman who winds up associating with less conservative feminists such as “victims advocates” can easily flip to a state where she sees her husband as an enemy. Such a man, no matter how conservative, no matter how churchgoing, no matter how well respected, is dead meat to any accusation of DV, and he will be totally blindsided by it.

Duluth is another example of how everyone in the industrialized world is completely immersed in feminism. We’re totally soaking in it.

Darwinian Arminian, the NFL is just another part of the Female Imperative. Pink month, female reporters in locker rooms, female sports desk commenters who know very little – it’s all part of the NFL trying to appease feminism.

Yep. They want the $$$. The DV PSAs are directly related to the previous stuff about Super Bowl Sunday being the national holiday for DV occurrences. So the NFL responded by doing these PSAs about DV to air during the SB. It’s really that simple. Like the rest of corporate America, they worship feminism because it’s about the $$$.

Some of the staunchest defenders of the Duluth model that I know of are men who are fiscally and politically and culturally conservative, who cling to traditions from the past – they are, therefore, traditional conservatives

They can be some of the most clueless idiots you’ll ever meet. It’s as if the last several decades never happened for these people. And it doesn’t matter what you tell them most of them will never listen.

~24% of all relationships have violence
~12% are reciprocally violent = both their faults
~8.5% (or 70% of the non-reciprocally violent) are perpetrated by women
~3.5% (or 30% of the non-reciprocally violent) are perpetrated by men

Women are the perpetrators of one sided violence at a 2.3x the rate of men.

I will probably not even watch the Super Bowl tomorrow. I have completely lost interest over the last few years, and we no longer have cable or over-the-air – just streaming. PSA’s like this one remind me that I’m not missing much. I can watch the replays later without the moralizing. A feminist-free TIVO.

Speaking of Pastor Abedini, I have spent a bit of time over at spiritualsoundingboard.com during the last week or two, as they seem to have taken quite an interest in him of their own. They are basically the antithesis of the rational posts and comments that one finds here. As such, I do not recommend a lengthy excursion there – the gag reflex will be exercised about every 30 seconds.

It took me awhile to understand what they mean by spiritual abuse: anything except egalitarianism is simply spiritual abuse waiting to happen. They are on a crusade of sorts now to impune any and all individuals (read: men) that have directly or indirectly brushed shoulder’s with Pastor Abedini and refused to censure him, because if you aren’t against him – you’re an enabler. Their latest “cause” is to fling poo at those who were involved in his ordination as a minister. You see, if they ruled the world, he never would have been given ministerial credentials. And so Calvary Chapel is on their blacklist (because they don’t allow women to minister, laid hands “too suddenly” on Abedini, and had the audacity to send him into the mission field), Franklin Graham, Jay Sekulow, and probably others. The all “turned a blind eye” and are therefore without excuse.

The older I get, the more I understand what “deception” means. If you want to see this up close and personal, without any of the subtlety of CBMW or a Kendrick brothers movie, ssb is just what the doctor ordered. But bring your airsickness bag – you’ll need it.

It is understandable, because most people don’t see a woman slapping a man in the face as being the same thing as a man walloping a woman. And that makes sense. The problem is that the law takes that and makes it apply no matter what the facts are — like in the link in Dalrock’s OP, where she cut up her husband’s face, the law was still applied in a wooden way. It’s one thing for people to think men are more capable of damaging women than vice versa — that’s of course true. It’s another to draw from that the idea that even if the facts don’t match that in a specific case that the man should STILL be arrested. That’s just incredible.

To see how far my thinking has come in the last two years, I remind myself that I used to think this was hysterically funny. Watching who laughs at this now is a litmus test of sorts. Laughter = not red.

Like the rest of corporate America, they worship feminism because it’s about the $$$.

Take it to the highest upstream point.

In a democracy, women become the majority of voters (and many men become manginas).
Women see the role of government very differently from men.
Women vote EVERY aspect of government, including the flow of tax money, so that it is heavily tilted in favor of women.
This massive flow of funds makes everything far more female-centric than would ever happen in a non-democracy (pro sports, female superheroes, bizarre female porn books selling hundreds of millions of copies, entire corporations destroyed in a mad craze to have a female CEO, etc.).
Hence, even products sold in the ‘free market’ are not selling to a free-market, but a female-distorted one.
In a democracy, EVERYTHING becomes female-centric, including things that were originally not about gender at all.

“For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God.” – 1 Peter 2:19-20

One solution to a violent wife would be for the man to have a “tough” female friend or sister, to act as a bodyguard. A real chola type. If the wife hits the man, the man’s female bodyguard can come over and punch the wife. Then tell the wife that if she ever hits the man again, the bodyguard will really knock the wife into pieces.

So if a man can’t hit a woman, find another woman to do the hitting for you.

I realize this solution is unrealistic. Even if such a female bodyguard can be found, over time she’ll as likely turn on the man.

Some of the staunchest defenders of the Duluth model that I know of are men who are fiscally and politically and culturally conservative, who cling to traditions from the past – they are, therefore, traditional conservatives

JimThey can be some of the most clueless idiots you’ll ever meet. It’s as if the last several decades never happened for these people. And it doesn’t matter what you tell them most of them will never listen.

Seriously. I was talking last month with a small business man who has been successful, he was a state politican for a while, his 20-something children are all marrried or engaged. He’s a churchgoing man who is fiscally, socially and politically conservative. He’s also absolutely convinced that divorce comes in two and only two flavors: First, women who have been wronged by their husbands via adultery, abuse or abandonment, and second 50+ year old men dumping the wife of their youth for a hottie. That’s it. In his mind, that’s the only form of divorce that exists.

He cannot be reasoned out of this stance, either Fortunately for him, his wife is a sweet, submissive woman who spends time at the family business or in Bible groups, so he’ll never know the other side of divorce. If MRA’s tried to change divorce laws in his state in any way, he would very likely be one of the first to resist, because he’s conservative and cares about marriage….

He’s also absolutely convinced that divorce comes in two and only two flavors:

On one hand, men like these are ‘good’ men on whom society depends. On the other hand, such men need to suffer for supporting this system, and being too stupid to adhere to personal responsibility, incentives, small govt, etc that cuckservatives claim to be in favor of (except in matters where a woman has a complaint against a man).

There is little to no chance of all of his kids avoiding divorce, however. He will probably side against his own son in this event.

Dalrock, the mean people of Facebook told me that I was awful and could not have a legal background and couldn’t even read because the story I was commenting on clearly said HE HAD A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONVICTION. HE IS AN ABUSER. End of story. No argument. Scarlet “A.” There is nothing more to discuss. He has a conviction on record! What are you even talking about? OF COURSE he abused her from Iran. Of course the abuser abused her sexually from Iran. That is what abusers do! Are you stupid? It all makes perfect sense if you just understand that he is a spouse abuser.

Oh’ I agree 100%. Even if you have the woman on camera starting it, hitting you with a shovel while saying fuck the police, while you cower in a corner; if you hit her or restrain her even once you are screwed.

Even if you don’t touch her you’re screwed. So you better make it a bit better for yourself.
Personally, I don’t hit women (or anyone for that matter) first. But if a woman hits me she can only do it once, and that is when she gets an unambiguous warning from me. A second hit will earn her a well deserve response, police be damned.

Here’s another one where an woman is attacking an male uber driver. This guy filming the whole ordeal saved his ass, because the uber driver was actually restraining her, and then throws her down. This woman isn’t out of the trailer park either. She’s a MD for fugs sake. The world is losing it’s collective mind.

I”m MGTOW, but I support any man who is trying to live a responsible and upright existence, married or not.

Even though I know they bristle at every email, text message, or link I send them, I try to put the bros up on as much Red Pill game as I can. News and Current Events, Bible Teaching, Manosphere articles…the whole thing.

They don’t know what to make of me…but whatever it is, they tend not to say it to my face.

It’s especially annoying because so many of my bros have sons.

As time goes by I tell them, “I’m just trying to put you up on game because I don’t want you to get caught napping when some shit goes down with one of your boys”. That tends to make them less antsy.

I realize that it’s not me that’s truly their concern..but their wives don’t like me sending them shit.

If someone hasn’t posted Rorschach again in this thread, someone should. That’s what will happen in the end to the ones who got fat off of crying wolf with regards to domestic abuse. When the real thing comes, no one will listen.

infowarrior1 said on February 6, 2016 at 5:54 pm
I saw your comment on Galatians 3:28 but cannot find it so. So here is an answer in opposition to the fact that this verse points to equality of all men before God:

”The verse mentions nothing about equality. So *clearly* it’s not about that.

St. Paul is saying that being “in Christ” is a new form of identity. An eternal one. On this earth, it does not change nor abrogate the biological, historical, and social facts of our existence (e.g., sex, nationality, financial independence). But in Christ–the Logos of God that “made all things”–the baptized are grafted into a new “nationality” that of Christ, to participate in his work.

[Galatians 3:26-29 NASB] 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Looking at the context of Galatians 3:28, I believe that it “*clearly*” is about equality. Every Christian is a son of God (yes, even women) and, consequently, an heir to the promise of the Spirit through faith. That is equality. Of “identity”, if you wish. And every Christian is also either Jew or Greek, either slave or free, and either male or female. That is inequality. Each person still has their own unique set of roles and characteristics.

As I said before, men and women are equal but unequal. In fact, I think much of the quotation you provided affirms this. We, “the baptized are grafted into a new ‘nationality'” while retaining the “facts of our existence.”

[2 Corinthians 5:15 NASB] 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf.

Christ died for all, not just for men or just for women. In that regard, we are all equal.

—If you marry a foreign woman and live with her in the US, she has to be married for 7 years to qualify for a green card. But, under VAWA, the foreign woman is granted an immediate green card, regardless of time married, if she even so much as claims to be abused, true or not.—

Does anyone know if that’s the truth? I wouldn’t be surprised at all. So your Slavic or Chinese unicorn can scratch up her own arms and tap her cheekbone on the counter until it welts up and call the cops after only 3 months of marriage. She’s green-carded and free in a country where, being a buck 30, she has already figured out how overwhelmingly coveted she is. Now if she is under a buck 30 and the cops come (and you know their wives are a buck 80 minimum) could you ever doubt that they would white knight in that situation, trying to get their foot in the door with her, knowing that you are done?

—If you marry a foreign woman and live with her in the US, she has to be married for 7 years to qualify for a green card. But, under VAWA, the foreign woman is granted an immediate green card, regardless of time married, if she even so much as claims to be abused, true or not.—

Not true. When you bring your fiance/fiancee to the US on the appropriate visa, you must marry within 90 days and she can file for a green card immediately after that.
[NB: contrary to what people tghink and say, these women would rather stay married than join the feminist bandwagon. They are primarily socialized to choose that path, even if our society preaches an alternative]

“If I choose the fiancé(e) visa option, how does my
fiancé(e) obtain permanent resident status?
Your fiancé(e) will need to enter the United States with a fiancé(e)
visa. Once admitted to the United States with a K-1 visa, your
fiancé(e) will be authorized to stay for 90 days during which you
are permitted to marry. As soon as you marry, your spouse may
apply for permanent residence by filing a Form I-485, Application
to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status, and mailing
it to:”

That addresses the process of applying for a green card but not permanent citizenship, I believe. The green card has to be renewed and a divorced foreigner would have more to worry about upon renewal. The details are hard to get a grip on but there is a very tight bond between VAWA and naturalization.

I typed V..A..W.. and google finished it off for me “VAWA Green Card” Hilarious. Of course all the language reveals that any abusee is unassailably righteous. I don’t need to get a full grip on this stuff. I’ve seen enough that there is a very strong incentive to lob an accusation of abuse in order to facilitate citizenship, whatever the time line is. A judge giving an auto-pilot ‘guilty’ just to tidy up the paperwork is so easy to imagine, meaning VAWA citizenship granted to an ‘abusee’ whose abuser was determined to be innocent wouldn’t make for tight bookkeeping. It wouldn’t look right.

Emily deduces that adverts (campaign advertising that is) must have an effect for otherwise no one would spend such vast sums of money on them. I beg to differ. How often have I seen ads or a series of them where I am no wiser at the end as to what product is actually being sold or even whether the product whatever it may be is available in my locality and this even though the ad may be memorable.

The purpose of campaign advertising is to demonstrate to ones competitors that even as one spends a hundred million dollars and more a year on them one can still make a profit; it is fitness signalling. The purpose of the highly expensive Superbowl ads is not to persuade you not to hit your wife or not to drive whilst intoxicated but to signal to those you wish to impress – government, your competitors and so on – that you are on message and deserve respect and special treatment, which its senior employees will surely in due course receive.

Most DV is female on male; boy-racers cause more deaths than drunk drivers: every society has its scapegoats.

I quit viewing football some years back, when Pink month first showed up. It wasn’t worth my time anymore.
—Anonymous Reader

I’m with you and Jim. First I stopped watching any game with players wearing pink sneakers, badges, or uniform trim. I hoped it was a fad that would pass. It didn’t, so two years in, no more NFL. And I don’t miss it, either. The NBA too. And college ball.

It’s been good. The Lord’s Day isn’t observed by reclining in front of the boob tube for hours on end watching men play kids’ games. Better to get outdoors and play with ones own kids.

Equality is a metric, even if you do not formally lay out the standard of ax+by over an incredibly large set of qualities. Different people talk about different metrics when they speak. Many times a given person will speak about different forms of equality at different times.

For example, grade 304 steel is grade 304 steel for the purpose of utility. It is fungible, and it doesn’t really matter if it comes from America or China, or any given mine within those countries so long as it actually meets the requirements for that grade of steel. It is within the set ‘304 steel’ and so measured according to the metric “is this 304 steel?” it is equal.

That said, different pieces of such steel may come from different mines, logistical chains, and manufacturing plants. And to some people, “mined, refined and made in america” are qualities that count in their purchasing decisions, despite the steel all being grade 304. They are using a different metric in their decisions.

Similarly, all humans are human. They belong to the set “humans”, and are instances of type “human”. This is true, on a genetic level, from conception. If humans have inalienable rights, and these rights apply to all humans, we therefore have equal inherent rights, be that person a white man, a black woman, an American, a China-man, or a man living in the Amazon rain forest. This is to say, we are equal in the basic dignity of being human.

That does not mean that the man in America and the man in China — or, even, two men in America — are equal in how their rights are protected, or the opportunities they find themselves blessed with at birth, including those talents with which God has invested them… let alone to say that everyone should be made equal in their outcome.

Similarly, we are all one body in Christ, and yet…

1 Corinthians 12-18 (NASB)
12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.

I think there is a lesson to be learned in here. Consider the nature of these sports:

Football- A bunch of guys in tight pants trying to get a leather ball over a goal line.
Basketball- a bunch of guys in loose shorts trying to stuff a leather ball through a hoop.
Baseball- A bunch of guys in pajamas trying to hit a leather ball with a stick.
Soccer- A bunch of guys trying to kick a leather ball through a goal.

What do these sports have in common? Men playing with balls. But notice there were often entire teams of scantily clad women present to “support” the teams, but the problem is the women just stand around and make noise. Obviously that is a frustrating situation. The result is domestic violence awareness adverts aimed at frustrated men surrounded by attractive women that don’t play with their balls.

The moral of the story is we wouldn’t need domestic violence adverts if women would stop standing around making noise and get in the game… because men love it when women play with their balls.

Personally, I find it immoral to support a system or society this twisted, and will not support people in becoming husbands or fathers.

Men are hard-wired to become husbands and fathers. That much is obvious, surely. If they weren’t thus wired up to do this, I see no reason why any of them would do so, given the prevailing climate.

Some of us can sublimate our libidinal energies into other things, or satisfy them by having a string of short term affairs with mediocre-but-attractive women. For most men, these are not realistic scenarios.

I will, and do, however, support those who have been ravaged by the system, and need help recovering. Man out on the street after serving time in jail for being unable to meet his imputed income, after his professional license was seized? Yes, I will happily give this man a meal, and comfort.

This isn’t too far away from my position, actually. I just extend the bounds of support to those men who are already married (whether they were chumps, or whether they went into it eyes-open) and don’t want to get divorced. Mostly I do this out of a displaced sympathy for my own dad, who had pretty much no one when he was married and got divorced. Part of it is theoretical. Read Jack Donovan’s work on the necessity of the tribe if you’re interested.

One of the benefits of being Brother Boxer is the ability to have interesting conversations with smart people from a wide variety of different places. One such discussion instantly springs to mind at your comment.

It’s been good. The Lord’s Day isn’t observed by reclining in front of the boob tube for hours on end watching men play kids’ games. Better to get outdoors and play with ones own kids.

I was having dinner with a charming young fellow of Japanese origin recently, when he happened to ask me what the deal was with all the American dorks who like Anime, Hentai, and related stuff. He seemed completely flummoxed as to why this would be a fad in North America, especially among adults.

After joining him in mocking the sorts of clowns who waste their lives watching this nonsense, I picked up a strange realization. In Japan, there is no television program aimed at anyone older than about twenty-five. Japanese society (which is different and arguably healthier than our own) just takes it for granted that adults have more interesting and more important shit to do that sit around watching the electric feminist for hours at a time.

To say that women are like freight trains, in that you can only be ran over by them if you step onto the tracks, is not entirely true, but it is mostly true.

What we have to remember about feminism and the “domestic violence industry” (I love that term) is that it’s all a type of mass insanity — one that cannot be reasoned with, but is gaining power at an alarming rate. We are experiencing the social equivalent of a nuclear disaster, and unfortunately, savvy men must look at all modern women as being psychologically contaminated, or at least potentially so. Not that it’s our fault, but our options are limited — we are down to the trump card, which is to take away the only thing women want from us: marriage. No time like the present to play it — the sooner the better.

Actually, this is a waste of time to even write this, because men don’t have to be told. MGTOW is a handy acronym, but there need be no “movement”. The word is spreading all by itself. Just let it happen.

Well said. MGTOW is not a “movement” anyway. It’s just a method for dealing with civilization that worships women as goddesses and where men are their slaves. All of theis feminist/PC/SJW insanity has made things so ass backwards that it’s now almost impossible to make a parody out of it.

Fascist: /fa-ˈshist/ – [n.] Someone who insists, to the point of subversion, deceit and violence, that everyone else must have attitudes, beliefs & behaviors identical to theirs, for the sake of uniformity.

SJW: /ˈes-ˈjā-ˈdə-bəl-ˈyü/ – [n.] Someone who insists, to the point of subversion, deceit and violence, that everyone else must have attitudes, beliefs & behaviors identical to theirs, for the sake of diversity.

joshtheaspie @ February 6, 2016 at 6:20 pm:
“Also, if a man has already become married, against my warnings, I will be willing to have him over for guy’s night, provide a single guy’s perspective to his children when asked questions, and generally show him the respect he needs to have a chance of holding his family together.”

I’m willing, too, but fatherhood seems to do nasty things to the male brain. My friends disappear when they get married and can’t/won’t make trips or hang out or do anything; nothing matters to those guys anymore except their families. They even start criticizing and shaming us single men for not doing the family thing while their marriages are going well.

Fathers don’t want us bachelors around, not even when we used to be friends. It’s something I’ve finally noticed and don’t understand.

…

Kaminsky @ February 6, 2016 at 11:56 pm:
” “The only way out that I see is for the western man to take back his culture, or create a parallel culture to counter the cancer of feminism in his land.”

Isn’t that what is being done in the manosphere, MGTOW etc?”

It is and discussing the evil of feminism & refusing to participate in it are critical steps towards correction. Dave, however, is a firm believer that women have no moral agency; therefore, it’s mens’ fault if women don’t behave; therefore, if we complain about the poor behavior of women but don’t magically change that behavior with our male privilege, it’s proof we’re Peter Pan manboys or something. All we have to do is “take back our culture”, you see.

…

Boxer @ 1:42 pm:
“I was having dinner with a charming young fellow of Japanese origin recently, when he happened to ask me what the deal was with all the American dorks who like Anime, Hentai, and related stuff.”

A relative of mine was deep into Japanime for a long time. He says it was cool when it was about giant robots and weird cowboys but not now that it’s about inappropriately dressed young girls.

Of course this is a fantasy of mine. I am already divorced with a child. So I am a slave. A SLAVE. But I have a slave’s fantasy. I make over 6 figures, but I am a slave. My other fantasy involves a rope….

Get racial Beyonce! Go gender war! IDENTITY POLITICS is what we need at the Super Bowl.!!

Also I loved the commercial where the cowboy visits a bank to secure loans so that he can buy his daughters (no son) “Everything they want.” Images follow of a lottery winners shopping spree all for the princesses and then a home purchase that is clearly pony worthy.

Nova, regarding divorce, you are right that Reagan signed the first no-fault law, but wrong about his reasoning for doing so. He didn’t leave Jane Wyman, she left him. Basically because her career was taking off and his was stalled. Not being able to get great roles, he took up the presidency of SAG. Which is the kind of thing that semi-washed-up actors do. So that was strike one. Strike two was that he really got into it and this was the blacklist era and Reagan concluded that, hey, there actually are a lot of Communists in this union! And he fought them hard. That was considered kind of low class. Even though Wyman always insisted she was a conservative Republican, the bad press he got over that apparently bothered her.

Strike three was a “relationship” with Lew Ayres. That’s been rumored to have been an affair. I don’t know either way it’s never been proved or disproved. But anyway, she wanted the divorce and he didn’t. He was shocked, apparently blindsided by it when she filed. He tried until the end to keep her and even after that still hoped she would relent and come back.

Under the law at the time, the only way to get a divorce was for cause. So Wyman had to sue him for “mental cruelty.” At first Reagan contested this but after a while he concluded it was better to go along and then try to woo her to relent. That of course didn’t work and so the divorce went through and she “moved on.”

But Reagan remained peeved about having been sued for “mental cruelty” which he felt was totally unjust and a lie. That’s why he signed the law. He thought it was better, if people were going to get divorced, that it not be based on some unfair lie about one spouse so as to meet some legal requirement. And, yes, he did later say that he regretted signing that law, just as he also regretted signing one of the first liberal abortion laws.

BTW, without actually saying it outright, Wyman later sort of admitted that divorcing Reagan had been a mistake. Imagine what it did to her hypergamy-hamster to see some other woman holding that Bible on Jan. 20, 1981. That could have been me!!!!!

Dave, however, is a firm believer that women have no moral agency; therefore, it’s mens’ fault if women don’t behave; therefore, if we complain about the poor behavior of women but don’t magically change that behavior with our male privilege, it’s proof we’re Peter Pan manboys or something. All we have to do is “take back our culture”, you see.

No, Gunner, I am a firm believer that women indeed do have agency. I am also a firm believer that men, not women, are the leaders of society. Thus, if a society is going to hell on a basket, the way we are going today, the men are primarily responsible, because, by virtue of their position as leaders, the buck stops with them.
Even this so-called feminism that we all write about cannot stand on its own without the support of men.
I was having a conversation about feminism with a female colleague of mine. I pointed to all the unjust laws that have been enacted against men. her response was that those laws were ALL passed by and enforced by men. That really got me thinking. If we expect any meaningful changes in society, men must come to the fore and re-assert themselves once again. Women were not created to be leaders; men were.

He’s also absolutely convinced that divorce comes in two and only two flavors: First, women who have been wronged by their husbands via adultery, abuse or abandonment, and second 50+ year old men dumping the wife of their youth for a hottie. That’s it. In his mind, that’s the only form of divorce that exists.

The only solution with a cuckservative like that is to send him the writings of an ultra-rare female anti-misandrist, like Dr. Helen. Dr. Helen goes into great detail about how the law is unfair to men.

A cuckservative like your friend has never heard this from a woman. Introducing him to Dr. Helen’s writings will at least confuse him enough about how best to grovel to women, reducing the certainty of his cuckservative pedestalization.

This is where a female anti-misandrist is very useful. Cuckservatives are often such because they have never heard a woman speak out against the laws.

The only solution with a cuckservative like that is to send him the writings of an ultra-rare female anti-misandrist, like Dr. Helen. Dr. Helen goes into great detail about how the law is unfair to men.

Whiners of the shitlib variety can be shut up in an identical fashion, with references from serious feminists (of the honest variety) like Esther Vilar and Camille Paglia.

It’s delightful to see them stutter and stammer when confronted with what a couple of honest feminist women think of modern female supremacy. Feminists (male or female) are herd-thinkers first, so if they start mouthing off, you just cut them off with something like: “What? I thought you said you were a feminist? You’re not disagreeing with the leaders in the movement, are you?”

I was in the process of breaking up with a girl, and I found myself outside of a Chick-Fil-A, crying on the curb. An officer approached us. “Are you okay?” He asked me. “He’s fine, he just…” “I’m not asking you,” the officer interrupted, “Sir, are you okay?”

At the time I thought that was really amazing. I was fine, but he was not at all affected by a gender bias, it seems. This was in West Palm Beach, Florida.

I have been married 13 yrs and my wife has slapped me 3 or 4 separate times during verbal arguments (there was no violence from me explicit or implied).
In the past I have done nothing, just brushing it off as her emotions getting the best of her. If it happens again I want to have a plan of action; something that will let her know it won’t be tolerated anymore. But I am at a loss of what to do that won’t make things worse, or land me in jail.
Any advice on how to handle this if it happens again??

Realistically, your options suck. Anything that involves the legal system or DV industry in any fashion sets you up to be seen as the abuser. Chances are also at least very good that your pastor would push for the modern Christian cross-dressing approach, and focus on you submitting to her and winning her over without a word (Love Dare, etc).

On the other hand, something is holding her back from doing this much more frequently. The state has offered her the option to abuse her husband at will. She does this sometimes, but most of the time she resists the urge. Chances are she understands that while the law encourages this, it is also extremely ugly. She is basically putting herself into the role of Stanley in Streetcar Named Desire. Some women are quite happy to put themselves in this role, and even relish it. But most women are horrified at such a thought*, and it sounds like your wife is like most women in this regard. Whenever you approach your wife on the topic, I think it would help to do so from this frame. What she is doing is not only a sin, but extremely ugly. She has issues with anger and resorting to violence, and at times is willing to use this as a tool to get her own way. Be unshakable in this, and don’t do anything to help her fall into the standard narrative that you are the abuser, or that you deserve it. This isn’t about self pity or fairness, but about being unwilling to lie about something which is a serious temptation for your wife to rebel against God and sin.

With the above in mind, what are some possible options? Calling the cops is a terrible idea unless you are fully prepared for the legal system to do what it is designed to do (to you). Do your research here before even contemplating such a decision. My personal focus would be on anticipating situations where she is working up to slapping you. If she is still semi rational but on the path to bully you in this regard, I would call her out on this. “Knock it off woman. You start an argument, then you follow me from room to room trying to bully me into agreeing with you, and eventually you work your anger to the point that you slap me if you don’t get your way. Then you apologize and swear you will never do it again.” Tune your description of the pattern to fit the one she actually follows, but the above is a good place to start. Depending on your own style and what you know about your wife, you might add “This is supposed to be a marriage woman, not an episode of Cops.” Also, depending on how you read her response, this might be an opportunity to pull her into a firm embrace as I described here.

If that doesn’t defuse the situation or she has already escalated past this point, my next step would be to get out of the situation so she can’t work her way through the rest of her pattern. Don’t try to get in the last word, and do so before she has the chance to trap you in a room (per the WebMD advice). To do this you will need to have a plan regarding your keys, wallet, going to work, etc. Then step out and go enjoy your day. Be prepared to spend a night or more somewhere else (if needed), but don’t broadcast your business to others. The risk here is that she uses this as an excuse to kick you out of the house permanently. However, even this is an ugly option, because it frames the narrative that a wife with anger and violence issues divorced her husband because he decided to step away when she started to lose control of her volatile temper. This probably won’t help you legally, and for most people it probably won’t help you much (or at all) socially, but you knowing the truth and not pretending otherwise will have real power (even if it isn’t enough to stop her from going EPL).

Hopefully the risks of this approach are clear, but there are some benefits as well. Catching it early will hopefully over time take away a tool she is using even when she doesn’t go all the way up the escalation. Part of the benefit here would be making this pattern obvious. You didn’t mention if there are kids involved, but obviously this would need to be taken into consideration. Kids are hostages under family law, and you have to be ready for her to use them accordingly. On the other hand, pretending that your wife isn’t incredibly out of line in repeatedly doing this is a problem in itself

*Any number of trailer trash references could be useful in pointing out how ugly this is. I mentioned likening the scenario to an episode of Cops, but you could substitute Jerry Springer. You could also warn her that if she doesn’t knock this off your upcoming Valentines or anniversary dinner will be at the Waffle House. In fact, it turns out that the Waffle House hosts candlelight dinners on Valentine’s day. Find a location near you: http://www.wafflehouse.com/valentine/

If you have children, wait until a day or two after the next slapping incident and calmly remind her that the minions of Child Protective Services are everywhere these days. If one of the children tells a friend or a teacher that Mommy slaps Daddy sometimes, the children are headed straight for foster care. By the time you get them back, you will have incurred legal bills so huge that all family assets may have to be liquidated. They also have the power to prevent you from working at any occupation in which you might come into contact with children by putting you on their phoney baloney child abuser registry. Furthermore, CPS often INSISTS that the couple separate, with the non-abuser getting the children back only on the condition that the abuser not be allowed any access not supervised by CPS. Tell her that if she thinks that you are exaggerating the overreach of CPS that she spend some time googling it. CPS probably isn’t as out of control now as they were in the 90s, but they are still capable of being very, very bad.

I’ve been told that the Catholic schools now have an absurd zero tolerance policy (to make up for the years when they failed to report pedo priests.) At some of the most gung ho Catholic schools, every skinned knee, etc., now results in a call to the Child Abuse Hotline, and they will NOT warn you ahead of time that you have been reported.

You could also mention to your wife that if the children grow up witnessing domestic violence, they are unlikely to screen out violent partners when it is time for them to choose spouses, and that witnessing domestic violence (or being raised by a mother who doesn’t control her temper) may lead the children to feel that they don’t need to develop self control.

Also, if you have young children, it might be worthwhile to at least consider writing a couple of letters to friends or relatives in which you detail her history of spousal abuse in case she later tries to set you up as being the domestic abuser. (Call the recipients of the letters on the phone after you put the letters in the mail, and ask them to preserve the letters and envelopes.) If the abuse was frequent, I would strongly advise setting up a secret camera to capture one or more incidents. But as these incidents only happen very occasionally, your wife would almost certainly discover the videotaping equipment years before they could capture her misbehavior, and the discovery would be likely to trigger the start of the divorce process.

If the children are of school age and sometimes witness these events, I would refuse to play the game of “Let’s all pretend this never happened.” Let your wife start to worry that one of the children might spill the beans at some point.

@Dalrock

If his spouse has very recently mistreated him, why should @castle celebrate Valentine’s Day at all? In this case, a woman who may be setting her husband up for a trip to jail does not deserve anything. Waffle House is too good for her, and I’m not kidding. A home where you are always walking on eggshells is really no home at all. No peace, no security, no trust — nothing but chronic anxiety.

If his spouse has very recently mistreated him, why should @castle celebrate Valentine’s Day at all? In this case, a woman who may be setting her husband up for a trip to jail does not deserve anything. Waffle House is too good for her, and I’m not kidding. A home where you are always walking on eggshells is really no home at all. No peace, no security, no trust — nothing but chronic anxiety.

I didn’t read his comment as something that was recent. More to the point, I don’t disagree that a woman who is setting her family up in the way you describe deserves nothing; this isn’t about what she deserves, but underscoring how ugly what she is doing is. If you don’t like the Waffle House candle light dinner idea (I personally would buy a new wife beater T shirt for such an occasion), would you approve of giving her a nice tin of Skoal in lieu of chocolates? Either way, she still has an answer for the question “What did your husband get you?” She just won’t want to explain the answer.

Scott already claimed the “Sweetest Man in the Manosphere” prize a few days ago, so your white knighting will not get you anywhere. I used to practice law, but Jesus set me free. I still haven’t let go of my license, though, so I just had to pay off the state bar for another year even though I don’t practice anymore.

@joshtheaspie

You could well be right about the “knowledge abuse” but married people discuss everything under the sun. As long as Castle waits a couple of days for things to completely calm down before casually dropping his knowledge bombs, he should be relatively safe. If not, then the marriage was hopeless anyway. Once one person has decided to leave, the downward spiral is virtually unstoppable, and every word and every act by the devalued spouse is offensive to the person who wants out of the marriage. Something like “knowledge abuse” is just one more complaint on top of a hundred other complaints. What a bogus concept — no two people have the same knowledge base. Every conversation would have at least one victim.

When I saw that ad I presumed that Jess was short for Jesse, and that Jesse is a gay man who recently married Jake, who turned out to be an abuser. I was sure this ad was about LGBTC/Other domestic abuse, a silent epidemic that we need to speak up about. I can’t believe you cissexists did not get that.

Perhaps the best advice I ever read about violence in relationships is (paraphrased) “If you find yourself contemplating violence in a relationship, end it. One of you is not mature enough for the relationship.”

I’m continually amazed at how little violence there is over the poor treatment men get in divorce court. It reminds me of the meme which says that if gun owners were truly as violent as the gun control folks say they are, there wouldn’t be any gun control folks.

It seems that in raw numbers, there is very little revenge violence. Yes, it happens, but as a percentage, it’s small.

I reminded myself daily when my ex moved out that prison would be far worse than divorce.

Sometimes in life it seems that when one settles a matter in their mind as to a course of action, that “magically” situations change. I know people who’ve been in violent encounters where when they made the decision that they’d had enough, before they took any action, the aggressor ran off and found other prey.

In the same vein, my ex used to continually beat the drum that she could take me back to court and get more money from me. The last time she said it, I was several states away on vacation, and I got fed up.

When I returned home, I met with an attorney in our very liberal city, found out what was and wasn’t likely, paid a retainer, and went home. I never said a word to her, but she’s not made that claim in the years since.

If you’ve got a woman who is violent, it really might be better to end the relationship sooner rather than risk things going badly.

@Dalrock: I really LOVE the idea of selecting the perfect Trailer Trash Woman gift for Valentine’s Day. I like the “Doublewide Pride” t-shirt from zazzle.com, but the “Don’t make me slap you with my flip flop” t-shirt from cafepress.com is perhaps even more suitable for the occasion. It’s just that because I live alone, any meal prepared for me by somebody else is quite nice, even if it is Waffle House. Get her a t-shirt and bring home a case of beer. That’s all the special occasion she deserves. Skoal would make a nifty stocking stuffer at Christmas, but for heaven’s sake don’t splurge and buy her the t-shirt AND the Skoal!!! That would send such a desperate beta signal.

On a more serious note, I did indeed assume that there had been a relatively recent incident at Castle’s home based on the idea that he would be less likely to mention the situation if it was “ancient history” that had resolved itself years ago. As a man you would have a better feel for what another man was trying to communicate, so I may have missed something important there.

I’m continually amazed at how little violence there is over the poor treatment men get in divorce court.

There are certainly suicides. But these men are not taking anyone with them. This is remarkable, when you think about it. But it also gives fuel to those who would say ‘if things were really as unfair as you say, there would be protests or organized resistance’.

I think it is a function of being blue-pill to the end, and just not willing to see how rigged the entire thing is, a) entirely outside of the US constitution, and b) conservatives love it despite how it contradicts everything else they value.

Add to that how the man will usually choose to live on for his kids (even as a maligned ATM machine under imputation), and this horror show continues. You would think that some ex-sniper would get caught in the machinery, and knock off a judge or two, but this has just never happened…

Men are noble and self-sacrificing. If men were as selfish and anti-civilizational as women, civilization would end within hours.

If his spouse has very recently mistreated him, why should @castle celebrate Valentine’s Day at all? In this case, a woman who may be setting her husband up for a trip to jail does not deserve anything.

The ideal Vagintine’s Day gift for an abusive wife is to be served with divorce papers – red gift wrapping optional. This is how I would have timed my “gift” to my abusive, adulterous (now ex-) wife last year had this disgusting holiday been on my mind. As it happened, she got her “gift” exactly one week early.

I’m continually amazed at how little violence there is over the poor treatment men get in divorce court.

There are certainly suicides. But these men are not taking anyone with them. This is remarkable, when you think about it. But it also gives fuel to those who would say ‘if things were really as unfair as you say, there would be protests or organized resistance’

Well, let not those who are benefitting from the status quo become too comfortable, because things are changing. The confrontation has already begun, and, if history be any guide, it will only get worse. Men are waking up, and are pushing back against mindless feminism. What is very telling is that some feminists never actually expected that they would get away with so much. Even Hannah Rosin, the infamous author of an infamous book which famously announced “The End of Men”, was actually surprised she had experienced such little pushback against her brainless assertions.

But things are changing, folks. The Internet is probably the best thing that has ever happened to the oppressed men of the West, and the worst nightmare of western women who are sold on the idea of feminist rebellion. Now, the single, aging feminists are, in the words of Dalrock, “piling up”, because they can’t easily get off the carousel in time to snatch an uninformed Beta. The game is up.
Personally, I prefer a quick end, and being a relatively impatient man, I want results very quickly.
But I am learning that there may be wisdom in this drawn out war of attrition against the feminists. Yes, let them age into childless, companion-less and comfort-less, shrived witches. Let them not be able to get away from what could have been and what should have been. Let the sight of every beautiful, feminine and motherly woman who values her husband and loves her children be an eternal rebuke to these poor excuses of women. Let the rambunctiousness of every kid, the loud laughter of every toddler eternally ring through the vacuous and empty nonsoul of every childless feminist. Let them be consumed with the unfulfilled pangs of desire for family, for love and for children. In the same way that God dealt with polygamous men like Artisanal Toad in the New Testament, let the feminists be an eternal monument to those who will come after, to show that feminism, slutttery, and rebellion against nature and against God–just like polygamy in the Church–will lead them through a dry and lonely path, filled with nothing but disappointment and heartaches.

Dave cannot let it go, he is always right, everyone is always wrong. Dave seems to think that monogamy doesn’t lead a man through a dry and lonely path, filled with nothing but disappointment and heartaches, which to me at least, is a barrel fill of laughs!

Dave thinks a man should continue to try to save a marriage, even after the wife has had so many adulterous affairs and brought another man to that families Church, suggests he doesn’t have the spine to say that ‘enough is enough’. Which is the only right response to such a wife.. as condoned by the Bible and Jesus himself.

Dave thinks a man should continue to try to save a marriage, even after the wife has had so many adulterous affairs and brought another man to that families Church, suggests he doesn’t have the spine to say that ‘enough is enough’. Which is the only right response to such a wife.. as condoned by the Bible and Jesus himself.

You’re wrong. A strict read of the text suggests that Jesus would step back and let that husband make his own decision. Nowhere in the text, nor in any interpretation I have ever read, is it required for a man to divorce his wife. All the significant interpretations suggest that in cases where divorce is permitted, it is the individual’s decision as to whether to divorce the woman or man who is whoring around.

I’ve heard many scenarios here and elsewhere, that describe an injured party (women and men too) choosing to repair the marriage rather than divorce. Usually the one whoring around (women or man – all the same) is too stupid to appreciate this kindness and forgiveness, and usually they keep doing it, but that’s not my business.

I always personally hope that such men are just playing along until the children get old enough to deal with things, at which point he will slap the old papers on the whore (surprise bitch! remember when you fucked my best friend ten years ago?) and get some payback, but I think in most cases this doesn’t happen.

In the end, we should allow each man to run his own affairs and his own family as he sees fit. That’s what I think patriarchy is all about.

You’re wrong. A strict read of the text suggests that Jesus would step back and let that husband make his own decision. Nowhere in the text, nor in any interpretation I have ever read, is it required for a man to divorce his wife. All the significant interpretations suggest that in cases where divorce is permitted, it is the individual’s decision as to whether to divorce the woman or man who is whoring around.

Sure, that’s all well and good but Jesus stated that divorce was allowed. This woman has whored around, betrayed her husband and children and brought another man to their Church in full view of the public. You can continue to sprout that he should try save his marriage but his marriage is done. Which is why divorce is allowed in such circumstance.

Yes, it’s his choice to try and save it but it will be her choice that matters. And she has made it loud and clear and she will not be able to respect a man who would take her back. There is a point where enough is enough.

Sure, that’s all well and good but Jesus stated that divorce was allowed. This woman has whored around, betrayed her husband and children and brought another man to their Church in full view of the public. You can continue to sprout that he should try save his marriage but his marriage is done.

Is English not your first language, or are you just not reading (either my replies or the Bible) and responding quickly?

Here’s what you said…

he doesn’t have the spine to say that ‘enough is enough’. Which is the only right response to such a wife.. as condoned by the Bible and Jesus himself.

Again: The Bible and Jesus don’t have any opinion on what the “right response” should be, as that will differ from household to household. I note that you also refused to read my words. Nowhere did I “sprout that he should try to save his marriage.” In fact, I argue against involvement at all, in a man’s personal decisions, and especially as to what to do with his marriage — as does Jesus and Bible.

This is why pozzie sites like Twitter and Fakebook are busily purging their systems of any ‘deviant’ users and thoughtcrime.

I got your point, but what I meant was that the Internet has made it possible for men to rapidly disseminate information to the unwary before they are taken to the slaughterhouse of feminism. In the past, each man suffered in silence, or only he could only warn other men in his locality. Today, one man’s bad experience anywhere on the globe could be an enduring lesson to millions of other men.

Stop listening to all those who tell you to divorce your wife. As a matter of fact, cut off any preacher, brother, or any other person who will not stand with you in your quest to save your family.

There we go Dave, you are in support of him saving his marriage. Your very first line of response is one line amongst others where you expressly told him to cut off any person that advises him to divorce his adulterous wife.

Why should I take your first line as what you mean when your next says the opposite?

“I’m continually amazed at how little violence there is over the poor treatment men get in divorce court.”

Me too but the system is expert at using what you love against you and in favor of them. They have it down to a precisely refined science. Incidentally, this is also how you know it is an evil system.

I seriously considered both suicide and homocide during my ordeal with the grinder. The only thing that saved me and some of the more vicious, parasitic family court filth were my kids. Simply put, they were more important to me than personal peace or justice. I would imagine that I’m no different than the vast majority of men who have gone through this process.

I also suspect that there are more than a few who maintain a short list of those who will be decorating lamp posts if TSHTF.

Paul has but to do one thing. Walk up to his adulterous wife, ask her to repent and leave with him and leave her adulterous life behind that very instant or…. divorce her skank arse.

This is a better way to phrase your argument, and I have no problem with it. Recall that in your earlier post, you implied that Jesus and the Bible commanded such a man to divorce his wife. That’s what I took issue with.

In the end, I’m here to learn about the text and its interpretations. Your interpretation is worth something, but it isn’t the only interpretation.

Why do all of you have such a problem with giving him a direct answer?!

I guess because we don’t know exactly what is going on with his personal situation. I can conceive of a situation in which I’d wait to divorce a cheating ho’. The most obvious example is if she had a little boy or girl I was worried about.

While I think divorce is almost always a horrible thing, I’d argue that it is more horrible to do it to a five-year old little kid, than to do it to a fifteen-year old kid. I’d also argue that if a man can play it cool, the revenge will be much sweeter in those later years, when he can suddenly pull the rug out from under a dried-out old bag, rather than from a hot young slut who has years left on the carousel.

Because I anticipate a rejoinder, I’ll ask in advance for a text which adds a temporal restriction to the allowance for divorce after-the-fact. There isn’t one. I’ve checked. Christian law is pretty much unanimous in declaring that if one party to the marriage contract (man or woman, doesn’t matter) is fucking other people, the other person is held harmless in divorcing the ho or playa — even if s/he decides to take some time inbetween the act and the divorce.

Stop listening to all those who tell you to divorce your wife. As a matter of fact, cut off any preacher, brother, or any other person who will not stand with you in your quest to save your family.

There we go Dave, you are in support of him saving his marriage. Your very first line of response is one line amongst others where you expressly told him to cut off any person that advises him to divorce his adulterous wife.

When the guy asked this question:

Should I stand for my marriage or walk away and start over and try not to make the same mistakes?

And I started my response thusly:

This is a question only you can answer. From your piece however, it appears as if you’d prefer to stand for your marriage. Assuming that is so, this is what I suggest.

If all you could take away is that I am pushing for him to save his marriage independent of his own personal decision to do so, you probably need to go back to kindergarten and learn a few things about the English language. Please stop embarrassing yourself; you are too old for this.

@Boxer – While I think divorce is almost always a horrible thing, I’d argue that it is more horrible to do it to a five-year old little kid, than to do it to a fifteen-year old kid.

This is correct. The fifteen year old has better coping skills to handle the disruption of their life. I saw it play out with my kids. The youngest looked least affected, but over the years it became obvious, was the most affected.

Anon @ February 8, 2016 at 6:01 pm:
“I’m continually amazed at how little violence there is over the poor treatment men get in divorce court.

There are certainly suicides. But these men are not taking anyone with them. This is remarkable, when you think about it.”

Violence isn’t an attractive option when the enemy is a system and not a specific person. Better to save yourself than open a few coveted vacancies at Mammon & Sons. Also, most of these men are Christian and we are not supposed to avenge ourselves.

“But it also gives fuel to those who would say ‘if things were really as unfair as you say, there would be protests or organized resistance’.”

So these folks would not object to a second Inquisition? Because by this logic, its mere existence would prove both its legitimacy and necessity.

You are doing the Lord’s work here. I pray that you stay strong and motivated. I’m sure what you are doing here is often a thankless job, but know that there are many quiet lurkers, like myself, who benefit greatly from your work and the community of commenters that you have attracted.

A couple people asked about kids (we have 3) and regency of slapage (most recent one was maybe 10 months ago). Since it has happened fairly recently I have no hope that she will stop this behavior unless she fears the consequences.

Thanks for the different ideas. A couple things I can’t see myself doing:

I will not be calling the cops; I don’t want to roll the dice, and somehow that seems like a weak response to her.

I won’t leave the house. I view that as a retreat; it’s my house. The best option would be to walk to another room; she usually doesn’t follow, so that technic usually works. I have fantasies of throwing her out of the house (with car keys and purse) the next time this happens and not allowing her back in until she demonstrates repentance. But if she calls my bluff and calls the cops, I’m done for.

I told my pastor; his response was …. silence. Next time I am alone with him I will put his feet to
the fire and see what his response is; I’m not optimistic.

There is no way I can confront her on this during the argument, by that point she is running on 100% emotion. I have tried and she immediately goes to attack mode and I can see that my words are to no effect. Her response when I have confronted her on it is that she probably shouldn’t do it, but I deserved it; it’s the classic non-apology. By the way, as far as I can remember, in 13 yrs of marriage she has apologized to me exactly 0 times about anything, and yet will apologize profusely to a stranger about the smallest thing. I think her pride keeps her from showing me any weakness. Pride is a woman’s #1 sin.

I think my best option for her to see the ugliness of this is to speak with her a few days later when she is operating at her normal 95% emotional level, giving me a 5% chance that she will hear (I’m being optimistic). Also, she cares a lot about how people view her, so a little public shaming would go a long way. Of course, I am like most men, and have no desire to air my problems to a larger group in the hopes that they might shame her into line.